APUSH John Marshall Court Cases

Marbury V Madison Background

• The end of his presidency, John Adams attempted to pack the court with federal judges (midnight judge appointments)

• When Jefferson became president he asked Madison not to deliver his appointments so they would not go into effect 

• William Marbury wanted his job

Marbury V Madison Ruling

• The court ruled Marbury did not get appointment 

• Policy of judicial review was established and it was determined the job of the supreme court is to determine the constitutionality of laws 

• This greatly influenced the power of the court and federal government

Fletchers Vs Peck Background

• In 1795, the Georgia state legislature sold about 35 million acres of land (Alabama and Mississippi)for a very low price

• It was later revealed that almost every member of the legislature was bribed. Was later called Yazoo Land Fraud. Land Grants were later cancelled and declared them void.

• However it had already been sold to third parties

Fletcher V Peck Ruling

• Ruled that Georgia can not revoke once it was issued, even if the deal to obtain it was corrupted

• Ruled that the Contract clause of the United States prevents a state from passing laws that attempt to break contracts

• Significant because it showed how the court has the power to strike down any state laws deemed unconstitutional which helped limit state power, expand federal judicial power, and protected property and contract rights

McCulloch V Maryland Background

• The second national bank of the US was chartered in 1816

• Maryland wanted to tax the Second Bank of The United States, but when the banker, James McCulloch, did not pay the state sued 

• The state thought that they had the right to tax the national bank because it was unconstitutional as the constitution did not give the federal government the expressed power to charter a bank 

• The bank, represented by Daniel Webster, argued that under the necessary and proper clause of the Constitution there was an implied power to have the bank and the state could not interfere with the national governments’ execution of its powers

• THE POWER TO TAX IS THE POWER TO AVOID

McCulloch V Maryland Ruling

• The court unanimously agreed that Congress has the power to imply powers not specifically included in the Constitution and that states could not tax institutions within the federal government

• The principles of federal supremacy and implied powers were established though this case

• It strengthened the power of the federal government and helped define how the U.S. Constitution was interpreted

Dartmouth College vs. Woodward

• In 1769, King George III granted a charter to establish Dartmouth College in New Hampshire as a private institution

• After American Revolution, New Hampshire's state government tried to change Dartmouth’ s charter to make it a public university, allowing the state to appoint new trustees

• The original trustee objected, arguing that the charter was a private contract that the state could not alter 

• When New Hampshire passed the law to take control of Dartmouth, the original trustees sued the state official in charge, William Woodward, who supported the state’s changes. 

• The case first went through New Hampshire’s state courts, and those courts sided with the state, saying the government could change Dartmouth’s charter

• The trustees didn’t agree with that decision, so they appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court

Dartmouth College vs. Woodward

• Chief Justice John Marshall wrote the majority opinion, a 5-1 ruling in favor of the college's trustees.

• affirmed the sanctity of private contracts and protected corporations from state government interference.

• Contract  protection: The Court ruled that the original charter was a contract. Under the Contract Clause of the U.S. Constitution (Article I, Section 10), states cannot pass laws that impair the obligation of contracts.

• Corporate protection: The decision extended the same constitutional protections given to private contracts to corporate charters. This meant states could not interfere with the rights granted to corporations by their charters.

• The ruling gave private businesses and corporations greater security against state legislative changes.

By protecting corporations from state interference, the decision encouraged business investment and expansion, which had a significant impact on the American economy.

Gibbons V Ogden Background

Background on Case: 

The State of New York gave Aaron Ogden an exclusive license to operate steamboats between New York and New Jersey. 

Thomas Gibbons had his own steamboat business using a federal license, granted under a law regulating coastal trade

Ogden sued Gibbons, arguing that he was violating New York’s state-granted monopoly

State vs. Federal power in regulating trade between states

Gibbons V Ogden Ruling

• Unanimous decision in favor or Gibbons 

  • Decided: regulation of navigation by steamboat operators for purposes of interstate commerce was a power reserved to and exercised by the Congress under the Commerce Clause = law invalid

• Business between 2 states is automatically interstate commerce regulated exclusively by federal government, not states